From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org]
Sent: Sunday,
February 05, 2006 10:48 AM
To:
'LPCalPeace@yahoogroups.com'
Cc:
'marketliberal@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: Did Brian Holtz die?
No, Paul, your public wish made on Sep
29 2005 did not come true.
Paul Ireland wrote:
PI> It sure has been quiet around
here lately. I haven't seen Brian Holtz
around. Given the fact that he admittedly says he ALWAYS posts last in
every conversation <PI
Not quite. I said I "never concede the last
word". There are three or four conversations (marked in red here) in which I still
owe people a rebuttal, but the weaker the last response from my opponent, the
longer I'm willing to wait to answer it. You're on a short list (with a few
foaming-at-the-mouth Christian fundamentalists) of people whose arguments are so
weak I'm willing to go months with their last message hanging unanswered in
cyberspace.
PI> I shut
his feeble arguments down and answered every single question he posed
(including the incredibly stupid ones) <PI
On Jan 31 you similarly claimed "Once
again, I have answered all of your questions", so on Feb 1 I replied "You count as poorly as you read" and quoted five
questions and three challenges from my Jan 28 message
that you had never answered. I made you a second $1000 challenge to quote your
earlier answers to each of these eight items, but of course in
your
subsequent
reply you failed to do so, and thus you admit that your Jan 31
claim was flatly wrong
Your
attempts to satisfy my three challenges of course failed, and your feeble
belated answers to my five questions will be annihilated at my leisure. In
the meantime, I can show your latest claim to be false yet again, just by doing
what you should have done before making your claim -- namely, search for
question marks in my Jan 28
message. We find:
- Paul claims he's clearly winning this debate, but
whines that I will consider myself "the victor by attrition because [I'm]
the last one posting". So I challenge Paul to set up with me a pair of opposing documents
of fixed size composed only of excerpts from our debate so far, and to refrain
from further debate on Iraq between us outside these documents. I'm perfectly
happy to stand on my record in this debate. Can Paul say the same
thing?
- So, are you willing to
lock your best arguments in a cage match with mine? Since you've
claimed to be "destroying" me in this debate, I'm willing to make it
easier on you and say that each of us can assemble our documents only using
excerpts from our debate so far. So just cut and paste 15K of the
most brilliant of the arguments you've been using in your "cerebral
beatdown" of me, and you're done. With no space to waste on ad hominem, repetition, or
vouching, you'll have nowhere to run, and nowhere to hide -- which is why you
almost certainly won't accept this
challenge.
- Whether or not my neighbor has cable television has
zero effect on the net incidence of aggression. A proper analogy would be with
taxation to pay for police protection that my indigent neighbors cannot afford
to buy on their own. Anarchists are against
such tax-financed law enforcement. Are you an anarchist
now?
Of course, these are just unanswered items
that happen to have been in the form of a direct question. As I told you on Feb
1, you have also failed to address points I've made that weren't in the form of
a question. When you brought up the Pledge again, I taunted you:
Thank you for stumbling over
yet another point from my Jan 28 message that you've never responded to. I
quote: "You appear not to know David
Nolan's original meaning for the Pledge. To educate yourself, see http://blog.360.yahoo.com/KnowingHumans?p=171 ."
I have to caution our readers: just because
Paul repeatedly makes demonstrably false claims about what has transpired only
days earlier in our debate, that doesn't imply that his claims about the
Constitution or Iraq or political theory are false. When I destroy those claims
of his, I don't want anyone to say my effort was wind-assisted due to Paul being
a blowhard.
PI> The level of arrogance and
pretentiousness required for a complete moron like Brian to purchase misnamed
domain like humanknowledge.net combined with the unmitigated gall and
self-exaltation to actually link to his own ridiculous site as a supposed
source of reference was shockingly funny. <PI
I have never once in this entire
debate referenced my book Human Knowledge as an authoritative
reference work. When I link to a claim or argument I've made on my site or blog
or Yahoo group, I do so obviously not to invoke my own authority, but to avoid
making these long emails even longer. (The notion that anyone might consider my
writings authoritative hadn't occurred to me, but it's interesting that it
occurred to you.) If the difficulty
of following a hyperlink is to be your official excuse in not addressing one of
my arguments, that's fine with me.
PI> assuming
he hasn't joined his daughter in the great beyond
<PI
Richard B. Boddie:
RB> HERE HERE !!!
<RB